"Somewhere, back in the family history of every single one of us with European, African or Asian ancestry, is a family of immigrants to America - a family who endured hardships (sometimes unspeakable ones) to arrive and to stay here.

Why do the descendants of immigrants wish to heap more cruelty and hardship upon other immigrants? I simply cannot understand this."

Oh wait what, Sessions has a problem with Business benefitting from reform and suddenly GAS about poor people?

"OK, Republicans, you now know that the pending immigration-reform bill drastically reduces the deficit without raising taxes, boost economic growth, improve the finances of the Social Security and Medicare systems, help private-sector employers, and begin to repair the damage between the GOP and Latino voters -- the fastest growing segment of the American electorate. Every argument you've floated thus far has been discredited, and you're out of excuses.

And yet, many of you still intend to kill the popular, bipartisan legislation.

The trick, at this point, is the difficulty in explaining why. "Because we hate immigrants" probably won't cut it. "Because our base hates immigrants" isn't any better. Your challenge is to come up with new talking points, and to do so quickly. Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.), maybe you have an idea on how to counter the fact that immigration reform will boost economic growth?

"This increased GDP will be at the expense of poor and working-class Americans. The benefit will go to the business owners while the wages of U.S. workers -- which should be growing -- will instead decline."

Right. So, according to Sessions, who has never expressed the slightest interest in looking out for low-income Americans, immigration reform will do too much to benefit the folks Republicans like to describe as "job creators." Business owners, he says, will benefit -- and for the first time in Sessions' adult life, he thinks that's a bad thing.

Maybe Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) has a different approach that might be more compelling?

----------

Well, it's at least different.

...Cruz, on the Senate floor [Wednesday], made the argument that we should oppose immigration reform for the sake of undocumented immigrants. He stood before a blown-up picture of a graveyard as he solemnly eulogized on behalf of unnamed souls who had been killed crossing the border:

"No one who cares about our humanity would want to maintain a system where the border isn't secure," Cruz said, noting that "vulnerable women and children" are being preyed upon by drug dealers and are being "left to die in the desert."

So Cruz opposes the legislation backed by immigration advocates because he's so deeply worried about undocumented immigrants.

I'm afraid the GOP will have to do quite a bit better than this if they hope to (a) persuade others their opposition has merit; and (b) avoid blame if the reform effort collapses in the face of Republican opposition."

Oh wait what, Sessions has a problem with Business benefitting from reform and suddenly GAS about poor people?"OK, Republicans, you now know that the pending immigration-reform bill drastically reduces the deficit without raising taxes, boost economic growth, improve the finances of the Social Security and Medicare systems, help private-sector employers, and begin to repair the damage between the GOP and Latino voters -- the fastest growing segment of the American electorate. Every argument you've floated thus far has been discredited, and you're out of excuses.And yet, many of you still intend to kill the popular, bipartisan legislation.The trick, at this point, is the difficulty in explaining why. "Because we hate immigrants" probably won't cut it. "Because our base hates immigrants" isn't any better. Your challenge is to come up with new talking points, and to do so quickly. Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.), maybe you have an idea on how to counter the fact that immigration reform will boost economic growth?"This increased GDP will be at the expense of poor and working-class Americans. The benefit will go to the business owners while the wages of U.S. workers -- which should be growing -- will instead decline."Right. So, according to Sessions, who has never expressed the slightest interest in looking out for low-income Americans, immigration reform will do too much to benefit the folks Republicans like to describe as "job creators." Business owners, he says, will benefit -- and for the first time in Sessions' adult life, he thinks that's a bad thing.Maybe Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) has a different approach that might be more compelling?----------Well, it's at least different....Cruz, on the Senate floor [Wednesday], made the argument that we should oppose immigration reform for the sake of undocumented immigrants. He stood before a blown-up picture of a graveyard as he solemnly eulogized on behalf of unnamed souls who had been killed crossing the border:"No one who cares about our humanity would want to maintain a system where the border isn't secure," Cruz said, noting that "vulnerable women and children" are being preyed upon by drug dealers and are being "left to die in the desert."So Cruz opposes the legislation backed by immigration advocates because he's so deeply worried about undocumented immigrants.I'm afraid the GOP will have to do quite a bit better than this if they hope to (a) persuade others their opposition has merit; and (b) avoid blame if the reform effort collapses in the face of Republican opposition."

Gallup released an interesting poll on immigration reform yesterday, which opponents of immigration reform probably didn't like. The pollster reported,

A majority of Americans would vote for each of six different policy changes that Congress is considering as part of a comprehensive immigration reform bill. Support ranges from a high of 87% for a multifaceted pathway to citizenship that includes a long waiting period, taxes and a penalty, background checks, and learning English, to a low of 53% for a law that would vary the number of immigrants the U.S. lets into the country, depending on economic conditions.

The single most popular provision -- a pathway to citizenship for undocumented immigrants -- is the one thing congressional Republicans say they oppose most. Indeed, some, including Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas), have characterized this element as the one thing Democrats need to give up on in order to get a deal done, as if the citizenship provision were some superfluous add-on, instead of the point of the endeavor.

But seeing the lopsided results -- 87% of Americans don't agree on much, but they support the pathway to citizenship -- got me thinking about the larger dynamic of Congress ignoring public opinion.

In theory, this isn't supposed to happen. Indeed, political scientists have spent years explaining how, in democracies, the policymaking process should generally reflect the attitudes of the electorate's mainstream -- Americans have policy preferences, they elect like-minded candidates to pursue those preferences, and there's an expectation that those preferences will manifest themselves in legislative outcomes.

Politicians have an incentive to generally honor, or at least consider, the will of the electorate, fearing a public backlash if they consistently go the other way. And as a consequence, most of the time, we would expect to see most U.S. legislators making a concerted effort to do what Americans want them to do.

But all of this seems to have broken down quite a bit lately.

Immigration certainly offers a timely example -- 87% of Americans support a pathway to citizenship, but most Republicans reject the idea anyway, and don't much care what the voting mainstream prefers.

But this seems to come up quite a bit, doesn't it? During the fight over reducing gun violence, more than 90% of Americans supported expanding background checks on firearm purchases, and wanted Congress to support a bipartisan plan to do just that. Republicans killed it anyway.

During the budget fight, most Americans supported a balanced deficit-reduction plan that included tax increases on the wealthy, but Republicans didn't care. When President Obama unveiled the American Jobs Act, most Americans backed its provisions, but Republicans didn't care. Americans like the idea of the Buffett Rule, ending tax subsidies to oil companies, and leaving Medicare intact, but for congressional Republicans, it just doesn't much matter.

Now, I should note that the public is sometimes wrong, and occasionally contradictory, so there's no credible expectation that policymakers will always put aside their own judgment to do what's popular.

That said, it amazes me to see the extent to which congressional Republicans have come to believe the polls are simply irrelevant. When there's pending legislation, and they're confronted with public-opinion surveys showing 9 out of 10 Americans backing a specific course of action, GOP lawmakers have no qualms about simply ignoring those wishes.

The Boston Globe (Boston, MA) May 18, 1993Three men accused in the clubbing and spearing death of Andrew S. McDonough last summer pleaded guilty in Suffolk Superior Court yesterday to manslaughter.Judge Robert Banks ordered Jason D. Clifford, 21, of Dorchester to serve 7 to 15 years, and Kevin Lynch, 23, of South Boston to serve 6 to 15 years in the state prison in Walpole; and Brian Lynch, 20, of South Boston to serve 20 years in the state prison in Concord.Clifford will be eligible for parole in about five years, Kevin Lynch in about four, and Brian Lynch in about two years.

Gallup released an interesting poll on immigration reform yesterday, which opponents of immigration reform probably didn't like. The pollster reported,A majority of Americans would vote for each of six different policy changes that Congress is considering as part of a comprehensive immigration reform bill. Support ranges from a high of 87% for a multifaceted pathway to citizenship that includes a long waiting period, taxes and a penalty, background checks, and learning English, to a low of 53% for a law that would vary the number of immigrants the U.S. lets into the country, depending on economic conditions.The single most popular provision -- a pathway to citizenship for undocumented immigrants -- is the one thing congressional Republicans say they oppose most. Indeed, some, including Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas), have characterized this element as the one thing Democrats need to give up on in order to get a deal done, as if the citizenship provision were some superfluous add-on, instead of the point of the endeavor.But seeing the lopsided results -- 87% of Americans don't agree on much, but they support the pathway to citizenship -- got me thinking about the larger dynamic of Congress ignoring public opinion.In theory, this isn't supposed to happen. Indeed, political scientists have spent years explaining how, in democracies, the policymaking process should generally reflect the attitudes of the electorate's mainstream -- Americans have policy preferences, they elect like-minded candidates to pursue those preferences, and there's an expectation that those preferences will manifest themselves in legislative outcomes.Politicians have an incentive to generally honor, or at least consider, the will of the electorate, fearing a public backlash if they consistently go the other way. And as a consequence, most of the time, we would expect to see most U.S. legislators making a concerted effort to do what Americans want them to do.But all of this seems to have broken down quite a bit lately.Immigration certainly offers a timely example -- 87% of Americans support a pathway to citizenship, but most Republicans reject the idea anyway, and don't much care what the voting mainstream prefers.But this seems to come up quite a bit, doesn't it? During the fight over reducing gun violence, more than 90% of Americans supported expanding background checks on firearm purchases, and wanted Congress to support a bipartisan plan to do just that. Republicans killed it anyway.During the budget fight, most Americans supported a balanced deficit-reduction plan that included tax increases on the wealthy, but Republicans didn't care. When President Obama unveiled the American Jobs Act, most Americans backed its provisions, but Republicans didn't care. Americans like the idea of the Buffett Rule, ending tax subsidies to oil companies, and leaving Medicare intact, but for congressional Republicans, it just doesn't much matter.Now, I should note that the public is sometimes wrong, and occasionally contradictory, so there's no credible expectation that policymakers will always put aside their own judgment to do what's popular.That said, it amazes me to see the extent to which congressional Republicans have come to believe the polls are simply irrelevant. When there's pending legislation, and they're confronted with public-opinion surveys showing 9 out of 10 Americans backing a specific course of action, GOP lawmakers have no qualms about simply ignoring those wishes.Is it any wonder the party is deeply unpopular?

I don't think attacking people who "pledge allegiance to the republic" is beneficial to policy making. It's similar to attacking "illegals" simply for the sake of their undocumented status.

Such activities are good and well for support vs opposition, but they often put a policy on the backburner.

What I'm currently concerned with is where to voice concerns about specific immigration policies.

"Somewhere, back in the family history of every single one of us with European, African or Asian ancestry, is a family of immigrants to America - a family who endured hardships (sometimes unspeakable ones) to arrive and to stay here.Why do the descendants of immigrants wish to heap more cruelty and hardship upon other immigrants? I simply cannot understand this."It's called IGMFU!I got mine, F you!It's about as ignorant as you can get.

On that note, this is amusing, but I'd like to stay on current events themselves.

That's odd. There should have been a reply above my last post that was also from me.To sum it up, I was also responding to An American:Attacking those who "pledge allegiance to the republic" detracts from the topic of "illegals."I'm more concerned with where to voice cases of injustice against people without documentation, so that these cases may be corrected and enforcement of laws will be made more streamline.

Can you point out where this happened?

"I don't think attacking people who "pledge allegiance to the republic" is beneficial to policy making."

Where you go is to Senators via e-mail, phone calls, letters to papers etc..Or stand in the public square and say your position. Or here, this is a public square in terms of speaking out.

Gallup released an interesting poll on immigration reform yesterday, which opponents of immigration reform probably didn't like. The pollster reported,A majority of Americans would vote for each of six different policy changes that Congress is considering as part of a comprehensive immigration reform bill. Support ranges from a high of 87% for a multifaceted pathway to citizenship that includes a long waiting period, taxes and a penalty, background checks, and learning English, to a low of 53% for a law that would vary the number of immigrants the U.S. lets into the country, depending on economic conditions.The single most popular provision -- a pathway to citizenship for undocumented immigrants -- is the one thing congressional Republicans say they oppose most. Indeed, some, including Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas), have characterized this element as the one thing Democrats need to give up on in order to get a deal done, as if the citizenship provision were some superfluous add-on, instead of the point of the endeavor.But seeing the lopsided results -- 87% of Americans don't agree on much, but they support the pathway to citizenship -- got me thinking about the larger dynamic of Congress ignoring public opinion.In theory, this isn't supposed to happen. Indeed, political scientists have spent years explaining how, in democracies, the policymaking process should generally reflect the attitudes of the electorate's mainstream -- Americans have policy preferences, they elect like-minded candidates to pursue those preferences, and there's an expectation that those preferences will manifest themselves in legislative outcomes.Politicians have an incentive to generally honor, or at least consider, the will of the electorate, fearing a public backlash if they consistently go the other way. And as a consequence, most of the time, we would expect to see most U.S. legislators making a concerted effort to do what Americans want them to do.But all of this seems to have broken down quite a bit lately.Immigration certainly offers a timely example -- 87% of Americans support a pathway to citizenship, but most Republicans reject the idea anyway, and don't much care what the voting mainstream prefers.But this seems to come up quite a bit, doesn't it? During the fight over reducing gun violence, more than 90% of Americans supported expanding background checks on firearm purchases, and wanted Congress to support a bipartisan plan to do just that. Republicans killed it anyway.During the budget fight, most Americans supported a balanced deficit-reduction plan that included tax increases on the wealthy, but Republicans didn't care. When President Obama unveiled the American Jobs Act, most Americans backed its provisions, but Republicans didn't care. Americans like the idea of the Buffett Rule, ending tax subsidies to oil companies, and leaving Medicare intact, but for congressional Republicans, it just doesn't much matter.Now, I should note that the public is sometimes wrong, and occasionally contradictory, so there's no credible expectation that policymakers will always put aside their own judgment to do what's popular.That said, it amazes me to see the extent to which congressional Republicans have come to believe the polls are simply irrelevant. When there's pending legislation, and they're confronted with public-opinion surveys showing 9 out of 10 Americans backing a specific course of action, GOP lawmakers have no qualms about simply ignoring those wishes.Is it any wonder the party is deeply unpopular?

This is the one I originally attempted to respond to (but the reply didn't post for some reason). It seems mostly directed at rational against a "republican" standpoint, with illustrations of these people ignoring or being directly opposed to the public at large.

Gallup released an interesting poll on immigration reform yesterday, which opponents of immigration reform probably didn't like. The pollster reported,A majority of Americans would vote for each of six different policy changes that Congress is considering as part of a comprehensive immigration reform bill. Support ranges from a high of 87% for a multifaceted pathway to citizenship that includes a long waiting period, taxes and a penalty, background checks, and learning English, to a low of 53% for a law that would vary the number of immigrants the U.S. lets into the country, depending on economic conditions.The single most popular provision -- a pathway to citizenship for undocumented immigrants -- is the one thing congressional Republicans say they oppose most. Indeed, some, including Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas), have characterized this element as the one thing Democrats need to give up on in order to get a deal done, as if the citizenship provision were some superfluous add-on, instead of the point of the endeavor.But seeing the lopsided results -- 87% of Americans don't agree on much, but they support the pathway to citizenship -- got me thinking about the larger dynamic of Congress ignoring public opinion.In theory, this isn't supposed to happen. Indeed, political scientists have spent years explaining how, in democracies, the policymaking process should generally reflect the attitudes of the electorate's mainstream -- Americans have policy preferences, they elect like-minded candidates to pursue those preferences, and there's an expectation that those preferences will manifest themselves in legislative outcomes.Politicians have an incentive to generally honor, or at least consider, the will of the electorate, fearing a public backlash if they consistently go the other way. And as a consequence, most of the time, we would expect to see most U.S. legislators making a concerted effort to do what Americans want them to do.But all of this seems to have broken down quite a bit lately.Immigration certainly offers a timely example -- 87% of Americans support a pathway to citizenship, but most Republicans reject the idea anyway, and don't much care what the voting mainstream prefers.But this seems to come up quite a bit, doesn't it? During the fight over reducing gun violence, more than 90% of Americans supported expanding background checks on firearm purchases, and wanted Congress to support a bipartisan plan to do just that. Republicans killed it anyway.During the budget fight, most Americans supported a balanced deficit-reduction plan that included tax increases on the wealthy, but Republicans didn't care. When President Obama unveiled the American Jobs Act, most Americans backed its provisions, but Republicans didn't care. Americans like the idea of the Buffett Rule, ending tax subsidies to oil companies, and leaving Medicare intact, but for congressional Republicans, it just doesn't much matter.Now, I should note that the public is sometimes wrong, and occasionally contradictory, so there's no credible expectation that policymakers will always put aside their own judgment to do what's popular.That said, it amazes me to see the extent to which congressional Republicans have come to believe the polls are simply irrelevant. When there's pending legislation, and they're confronted with public-opinion surveys showing 9 out of 10 Americans backing a specific course of action, GOP lawmakers have no qualms about simply ignoring those wishes.Is it any wonder the party is deeply unpopular?

Ack. It did it again! Not posting.

This post. It seems to talk more about the republican view as a negative, rather than addressing immigration.

<quoted text>It's a poll specifically asking about Immigration with results of large American majority but you don't see what it has to do with Immigration?

No, I see the poll and relation to immigration.It's just that the post moves to point out a contrast between public and representatives, with focal points around "republican" ignorance of public opinion.

Key people in opposition of changes to current management of undocumented individuals may claim republican colors, but driving points about immigration reform home (imo) means focusing on the inaccuracy of those individual's views regarding immigration, regardless of which political group they pledge to.

Locating republicans who are in favor of immigration reform and correcting the error in judgement in those who would exile all undocumented immigrants, might be easier when not suggesting that "republicans" are in opposition (or should be).

<quoted text>No, I see the poll and relation to immigration.It's just that the post moves to point out a contrast between public and representatives, with focal points around "republican" ignorance of public opinion.Key people in opposition of changes to current management of undocumented individuals may claim republican colors, but driving points about immigration reform home (imo) means focusing on the inaccuracy of those individual's views regarding immigration, regardless of which political group they pledge to.Locating republicans who are in favor of immigration reform and correcting the error in judgement in those who would exile all undocumented immigrants, might be easier when not suggesting that "republicans" are in opposition (or should be).

I see, check the chances for the Bill being discussed in the Senate of passing in the House, come back and tell me, that's not a Republican problem, K?

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Add your comments below

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite.
Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.